Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

The non-relativistic limit of HSZ Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In the non-relativistic limit of HSZ theory, higher-derivative corrections to the metric cannot be removed by field redefinitions, unlike in the relativistic case.

desk verdict First NR limit of HSZ theory with useful explicit algebra, but the central non-removability claim rests on a covariance argument that does not rule out the relevant field redefinitions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22707 v5 pith:DZ6XXYAC submitted 2025-05-28 hep-th

Eric Lescano This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords non-relativisticlimitHSZtheorydoublefieldgeneralizedmetrichigher-derivativecorrectionsT-dualityheteroticsupergravityfour-derivativeaction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

HSZ theory is a higher-derivative theory of gravity that keeps T-duality exact and manifest, and this paper studies what happens to it when spacetime is taken to be non-relativistic. Because the theory can be written entirely in terms of the generalized metric and generalized dilaton, its Lagrangian stays convergent through the limit, but the symmetry transformations acquire three-derivative corrections. The central finding is that, unlike in the relativistic case, the corrections to the metric, the inverse metric, and the field $c_{\mu\nu}$ that encodes the divergent part of the B-field cannot be fully eliminated by field redefinitions; only the b-shift parts can be removed, while certain diffeomorphism corrections are unavoidable. This matters because HSZ interpolates order by order between heterotic and bosonic string theories, so the computed b-field terms give part of the four-derivative structure of heterotic supergravity in the non-relativistic regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized metric $\mathcal{H}_{MN}$ of double field theory, expanded in the non-relativistic ansatz $\mathcal{H}_{MN} = \mathcal{H}^{(0)}_{MN} + \mathcal{H}^{(-2)}_{MN}$ whose components are built from $h_{\mu\nu}$, $\tau_{\mu\nu}$, $b_{\mu\nu}$ and $c_{\mu\nu}$, with the condition $c^{\mu\rho}\tau_{\rho\sigma}c^{\sigma\nu} = \tau^{\mu\nu}$ ensuring that the expansion is finite. Around this, the theory's deformed gauge transformations produce the three-derivative corrections. The paper isolates which corrections are removable by factoring each correction as a coefficient tensor contracted with second derivatives of the gauge parameter, then checking whether that tensor transforms covariantly; non-covariant pieces cannot be redefined away and are declared unambiguous.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the claim is to try to construct a field redefinition that removes the non-covariant terms exhibited in equations (3.38) and (3.45); if even one such redefinition exists, or if a vielbein parametrization satisfying $c_{\mu\nu} = -\tau_\mu{}^a \tau_\nu{}^b \epsilon_{ab}$ renders the corrections trivial, the paper's central conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the non-relativistic limit of HSZ theory is not a trivial reduction of the relativistic result: the higher-derivative corrections to the symmetry transformations are generically non-trivial. Starting from the pure-metric non-relativistic expansion of the generalized metric, the first deformed generalized diffeomorphism generates corrections to $h_{\mu\nu}$, $\tau_{\mu\nu}$, $b_{\mu\nu}$ and $c_{\mu\nu}$. The pieces proportional to the b-shift parameter $\zeta^\mu$ can be absorbed into field redefinitions, but the pieces proportional to second derivatives of the diffeomorphism parameter $\xi^\mu$ cannot: their coefficient tensors transform non-covariantly, and the paper exhibits the irreducible parts explicitly. The same obstruction appears in the relativistic case only for the B-field; for the metric and inverse metric the relativistic corrections vanish after field redefinitions, while in the non-relativistic limit they survive. The paper further shows that performing field redefinitions before taking the limit makes the supergravity-level Lagrangian convergent, and that the $b_{\mu\nu}$-dependent four-derivative terms computed here are part of the four-derivative structure of heterotic supergravity in the non-relativistic regime.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on assuming that the pure-metric non-relativistic expansion of the generalized metric, including the constraint $c^{\mu\rho}\tau_{\rho\sigma}c^{\sigma\nu} = \tau^{\mu\nu}$, is the correct way to take the limit and that the expansion converges to all orders; a different parametrization, for instance a vielbein-based one, could change or remove the claimed corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HSZ Lagrangian stays finite to all orders in derivatives under the non-relativistic limit, because the generalized metric and the generalized dilaton have convergent non-relativistic expansions.
  • Field redefinitions must be performed before taking the limit; redefining after the limit does not cure the divergences in the supergravity-level Lagrangian.
  • The computed b-field terms are a concrete piece of the non-relativistic four-derivative heterotic supergravity action, since HSZ reduces to the appropriate heterotic sector at that order.
  • Some non-trivial deformation of diffeomorphisms is part of the non-relativistic symmetry structure, because the corrections to $b_{\mu\nu}$ and $c_{\mu\nu}$ cannot be fully trivialized.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if this obstruction is robust, consistent non-relativistic higher-derivative string actions should be formulated with anomalous diffeomorphisms rather than ordinary ones, which would change how non-relativistic effective actions are assembled.
  • Editorial inference: the explicit irreducible terms provide a direct test target; a vielbein-based non-relativistic parametrization could be constructed and checked term by term against equations (3.38) and (3.45).
  • Editorial inference: the prescription to perform field redefinitions before taking the limit may apply to any higher-derivative non-relativistic string reduction, suggesting that curvature-squared terms in non-relativistic supergravity generically need pre-limit rather than post-limit redefinitions.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's hint that generalized-metric and generalized-flux formulations may give inequivalent non-relativistic limits implies several distinct non-relativistic string theories at four derivatives, a possibility that could be settled by comparing the two Lagrangians.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the non-relativistic (NR) limit of HSZ theory, a manifestly T-duality-invariant higher-derivative gravity theory formulated in double field theory. Using the pure-metric parametrization of the generalized metric introduced in [13], the author computes three-derivative corrections to the symmetry transformations of h, τ, b and c, and claims that, unlike in the relativistic case, the corrections to the metric degrees of freedom cannot be removed by field redefinitions. The paper also proposes a family of field redefinitions to be performed before taking the NR limit, and presents a partial computation of four-derivative terms in the NR action that depend on the b-field, interpreting these as part of the four-derivative structure of heterotic supergravity in the NR regime.

Significance. The central question—whether higher-derivative corrections in the NR limit can be trivialized by field redefinitions—is relevant for constructing non-relativistic limits of string-theory effective actions, and the HSZ framework is a good setting because its generalized-metric formulation has a convergent NR expansion. The paper's main claims are interesting and would be useful if fully established, and the work contains no fitted parameters; it builds directly on the prior ansatz of [13]. However, the load-bearing non-removability claim is asserted rather than proven, and the four-derivative action is only partially computed, with the final Lagrangian not assembled from the reported tensor structures. As it stands, the paper provides a plausible but incomplete demonstration of its central conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.26)–(3.27)] The central claim that Δξhμν and Δξτμν cannot be removed by field redefinitions is not established. The text says 'the reader can easily prove' that h1 and τ1 transform non-covariantly, but the field redefinitions used earlier in the same section, Eqs. (3.24)–(3.25) and (3.44), are themselves non-covariant. Non-covariance is therefore not an obstruction. To prove non-removability one must rule out a field redefinition Qμν(h,τ,c,b) of order α' whose ordinary diffeomorphism variation produces a term proportional to −h1 ∂σ∂αξβ; no such no-go argument is given. Since the abstract's distinction between the relativistic and NR cases depends on this point, the central claim is not yet proven.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.34)–(3.38)] The same gap appears for the c-field. The statement that 'some of the terms of c2 transform non-covariantly' and therefore 'cannot be removed with field redefinitions' is again not a no-go: the paper's own redefinitions are non-covariant, and a non-covariant field redefinition of the form Qρσ(τ,h,c,b) could in principle cancel the displayed terms. An explicit obstruction—for example, an invariance or cohomological argument, or a direct check that no allowed Q produces the required variation—is needed before the Green-Schwarz-like interpretation in Eq. (3.38) is justified.
  3. [§3.3 and Appendix C] The four-derivative Lagrangian is only partially computed. Equation (3.53) gives a schematic decomposition, and Appendix C reports the tensors Tμνρ, Tμνρσ, Tμνρσγ and Tμνρσγελβα, but the text explicitly says that the full computation is a 'hard computational challenge' and that the final curvature-based form is only an expectation. Consequently, the conclusion that the paper has constructed the b-field-dependent part of the four-derivative structure of heterotic supergravity in the NR limit is stronger than what the presented computation supports. The manuscript should either complete the assembly of L(4) from the appendix entries or clearly state that the b-dependent contribution is a preliminary partial result.
  4. [§4, Eqs. (4.4)–(4.8)] The claim that the proposed pre-limit field redefinitions make the supergravity-level HSZ Lagrangian convergent is not demonstrated. Only a specific 'possible choice' for Δ1g, Δ1B and Δ1φ is written down; the paper does not show that this choice removes the c^6 divergences in Hμνρ Ωμνρ, nor does it verify that the redefined Lagrangian has a finite c-expansion. The diagram in §4 is therefore a conjecture. At minimum, the divergence structure before and after the redefinition should be presented explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, Eq. (1.1)–(1.3)] There are typos in the text: 'T-duality invarint' should be 'invariant', 'remanent' should be 'remaining', and 'expresion' should be 'expression'. The notation for the c-expansion would benefit from a consistent statement that c is a dimensionless expansion parameter and not the c-field.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.24)–(3.25)] The field redefinitions (3.24)–(3.25) are presented as eliminating the ζ-dependent pieces, but the computation is not shown. A short verification or an appendix entry would make this step reproducible.
  3. [Appendix B] The object b2 αβ[ω][μν] in Eq. (B.1) is extremely long and is introduced without a clear statement of its index symmetries or how it was obtained. Since the non-removability of the b-field correction relies on this object, its derivation and properties should be stated more explicitly.
  4. [§5, last paragraph] The discussion of potential inequivalence between the generalized-metric and generalized-flux formulations is interesting but is presented as speculation. It would be helpful to separate this clearly from the paper's proven results, for example by labeling it as an outlook.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NR ansatz is an explicit input from prior work and the non-removability claim is a covariance assertion, not a fitted or self-defined result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained relative to its explicitly stated inputs. The non-relativistic expansion for the generalized metric, equations (3.1)-(3.3), together with the Newton-Cartan and c-field constraints (3.7)-(3.10), is quoted verbatim from Lescano and Osten [13] as an assumed ansatz, not as a new result derived inside this paper. The three-derivative corrections to the symmetry transformations, equations (3.20)-(3.21), (3.30)-(3.38), and (3.43)-(3.48), are obtained by substituting that ansatz into the HSZ deformed gauge transformations (2.3)-(2.5); they are genuine computations rather than a rewriting of the input. There are no fitted parameters, and no predicted quantity reduces by the paper's own equations to an input. The claim that the metric corrections cannot be removed by field redefinitions rests on the statement that the factorized coefficients 'transform in a non-covariant fashion' below (3.26)-(3.27), and on the analogous non-covariance claims for the c- and b-field coefficients in (3.34)-(3.38) and (3.45)-(3.46). This is an assertion about the transformation properties of computed objects, not an equivalence between the conclusion and the assumptions; whether the non-covariance test is sufficient is a correctness or proof-gap question, not a circularity question. The paper does cite the author's prior work [13] for the NR ansatz and [16] for the HSZ interpolation and for the expectation about the next order, and these citations are load-bearing for the setup, but they concern independent prior constructions rather than the present paper's target conclusion. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no known result is merely relabelled, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The only caveat is that the no-go for field redefinitions would be stronger if the paper explicitly ruled out the class of non-covariant redefinitions it uses earlier; but an omitted proof is not a circular step. Overall, the central derivation is not circular, with only minor reliance on the author's prior framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on no numerically fitted parameters beyond the hand-chosen field redefinition coefficients. It imports the DFT strong constraint, the non-relativistic generalized metric ansatz and Newton-Cartan constraints from [13], the integrated-out F relation from HSZ literature, and the HSZ/heterotic/bosonic identification from [16]. The pre-limit field redefinitions in (4.7) are a modeling choice rather than a fitted number.

free parameters (1)
  • Coefficients in the pre-limit field redefinitions Delta_1 g, Delta_1 B and Delta_1 phi (eqs. 4.4-4.8) = All monomials fixed to +/- 1/4
    Chosen by hand before the non-relativistic limit to cancel c^6 divergences. The paper does not explore a continuous family or prove uniqueness, so this choice is an input to the claimed convergence rather than a derived result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Strong constraint of double field theory, d_M A d^M B = 0 (eq. 2.1)
    Imposed throughout; it makes the deformed gauge algebra close and is standard for the HSZ/DFT framework, but is not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic generalized metric expansion and Newton-Cartan constraints (eqs. 3.1-3.10), including c^{mu rho} tau_{rho sigma} c^{sigma nu} = tau^{mu nu}
    Taken from [13] and stated as the minimal requirement for a finite generalized metric expansion. Every component computation in Section 3 uses this ansatz.
  • ad hoc to paper Pure metric parametrization rather than a vielbein or frame formalism
    Section 3.1 and the end of Section 3.2 assume a fully metric ansatz and note that the vielbein version is left for future work. A different parametrization could change which corrections are non-ambiguous.
  • domain assumption The integrated-out massive field F^{MN} is given by eq. (2.15)
    The four-derivative Lagrangian (3.52) uses this on-shell relation for F, which is derived in prior HSZ literature and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Generalized metric and generalized dilaton have convergent non-relativistic expansions to all orders
    This prior result from [13] underlies the abstract's all-order convergence claim. The present paper cites it but does not prove or test it.
  • domain assumption HSZ four-derivative terms coincide with Z2 odd heterotic string terms, and six-derivative terms with Z2 even bosonic string terms (via [16])
    Used in Section 5 and the conclusion to interpret the computed b-field terms as a truncation of non-relativistic heterotic supergravity. If the identification fails, the heterotic interpretation does not follow.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The non-relativistic limit of HSZ Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZ6XXYAC

@misc{pith2026250522707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The non-relativistic limit of HSZ Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZ6XXYAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22707}
}
read the original abstract

We study the non-relativistic (NR) limit of HSZ theory, a higher-derivative theory of gravity with exact and manifest T-duality invariance. Since the theory can be formulated using the generalized metric formalism, the HSZ Lagrangian remains convergent to all orders in derivatives when taking the NR limit. In this work, we analyze the three-derivative corrections to the symmetry transformations of the fields in the NR case, as well as the terms in the four-derivative action depending on the b-field. Interestingly, the corrections to the metric degrees of freedom cannot be fully trivialized, as in the relativistic case, in order to preserve the convergence of the theory. As HSZ theory interpolates order by order between heterotic and bosonic string theories, the results of this work can be interpreted as a truncation of the four-derivative structure of heterotic supergravity in the NR limit.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Curvatures and Non-metricities in the Non-Relativistic Limit of Bosonic Supergravity

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A metric-only, torsionless-connection formulation with fixed non-metricities rewrites the non-relativistic limit of bosonic supergravity covariantly and matches the vielbein string Newton-Cartan action at Lagrangian level.

  2. Higher-Order Newton-Cartan Gravity

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors derive non-relativistic Newton-Cartan limits of quadratic gravity theories, obtaining higher-order corrected Poisson equations for Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet and Ricci-squared gravity.

  3. An Introduction to String Newton-Cartan Holography and Integrability

    hep-th 2026-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    String Newton-Cartan holography, the non-relativistic limit of the AdS/CFT correspondence, is organized and reviewed around five consistency conditions, with its classical solutions, spectrum, and integrability structure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [13]

    Non-Relativistic Limits of Bosonic and Heterotic Double Field Theory

    E. Lescano and D. Osten, “Non-relativistic limits of bosonic and heterotic Double Field Theory”, JHEP 07 (2024) 286, arXiv:hep-th/2405.10362

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Causality Con- straints on Corrections to the Graviton Three-Point Coupling,

    X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena and A. Zhiboedov, “Causality Con- straints on Corrections to the Graviton Three-Point Coupling,” JHEP1602(2016) 020 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)020

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2016)020 2016

  3. [2]

    Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings,

    W. Siegel, “Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 2826 [hep-th/9305073]. W. Siegel, “Two vierbein formalism for string inspired axionic gravity,” Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 5453 [hep-th/9302036]

    arXiv 1993

  4. [3]

    Double Field Theory,

    C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Double Field Theory,” JHEP0909(2009) 099 [arXiv:0904.4664 [hep-th]]. C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “The Gauge algebra of double field theory and Courant brackets,” JHEP0909(2009) 090 [arXiv:0908.1792 [hep-th]]. O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Background independent action for double field theory,” JHEP1007(2010) 016 [arXiv:1003.502...

    arXiv 2009

  5. [4]

    Double Field Theory: A Pedagogical Review,

    G. Aldazabal, D. Marques and C. Nunez, “Double Field Theory: A Pedagogical Review,” Class. Quant. Grav.30, 163001 (2013) [arXiv:1305.1907 [hep-th]]. O. Hohm, D. L¨ ust and B. Zwiebach, “The Spacetime of Double Field Theory: Review, Remarks, and Outlook,” Fortsch. Phys.61, 926 (2013) [arXiv:1309.2977 [hep-th]]. J-H.Park, “Gravitational Core of Double Field...

    arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    O(D,D) and the stringα ′ expansion: An obstruction,

    S. Hronek and L. Wulff, “O(D,D) and the stringα ′ expansion: An obstruction,” JHEP04(2021) 013, [hep-th/2012.13410]. S. W. Hsia, A. R. Kamal, and L. Wulff, No manifest T-duality at orderα’3, Phys.Rev.D 111 (2025) 6, L061904. 31

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Double field theory at orderα ′,

    O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Double field theory at orderα ′,” JHEP1411(2014) 075 [arXiv:1407.3803 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    T-duality and $\alpha'$-corrections

    D. Marques and C. A. Nunez, “T-duality andα’-corrections,” JHEP1510(2015) 084 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)084 [arXiv:1507.00652 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Order alpha-prime (Two Loop) Equivalence of the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions: Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,

    R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Order alpha-prime (Two Loop) Equivalence of the String Equations of Motion and the Sigma Model Weyl Invariance Conditions: Dependence on the Dilaton and the Antisymmetric Tensor,” Nucl. Phys. B293 (1987) 385

    1987

  2. [9]

    Doubledα ′-geometry,

    O. Hohm, W. Siegel and B. Zwiebach, “Doubledα ′-geometry,” JHEP1402(2014) 065 [arXiv:1306.2970 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Lescano,‘α ′–corrections and their double formulation’, J.Phys.A55(2022) 5, 053002, [arXiv:2108.12246]

    E. Lescano,‘α ′–corrections and their double formulation’, J.Phys.A55(2022) 5, 053002, [arXiv:2108.12246]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    On the curious spectrum of duality invari- ant higher-derivative gravity,

    O. Hohm, U. Naseer and B. Zwiebach, “On the curious spectrum of duality invari- ant higher-derivative gravity,” JHEP1608(2016) 173 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)173 [arXiv:1607.01784 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Double metric, generalized metric, andα ′- deformed double field theory,

    O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Double metric, generalized metric, andα ′- deformed double field theory,” Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.6, 064035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064035 [arXiv:1509.02930 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Background Independent Double Field Theory at Orderα’: Metric vs. Frame-like Geometry

    O. Hohm, “Background Independent Double Field Theory at Orderα’: Metric vs. Frame-like Geometry”, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 6 066018, [arXiv:1612.06453]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aspects of Nonrelativistic Strings,

    G. Oling and Z. Yan, “Aspects of Nonrelativistic Strings,” Front. in Phys. 10 (2022) 832271, arXiv:hep-th/2202.12698. J. Hartong, N. A. Obers, and G. Oling, “Review on Non-Relativistic Gravity”, arXiv:hep-th/2212.11309. 32 A. Guijosa, “On the Underlying Nonrelativistic Nature ...

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Second order higher-derivative corrections in Double Field Theory

    E. Lescano and D. Marques, “Second order higher-derivative corrections in Double Field Theory”, JHEP1706, 104 (2017), [hep-th/1611.05031]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Classification of non-Riemannian doubled-yet-gauged spacetime,

    K. Morand and J.-H. Park, “Classification of non-Riemannian doubled-yet-gauged spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol.77, no. 10, p. 685, 2017. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 901 (2018)]

    2018

  10. [18]

    A worldsheet supersymmetric Newton-Cartan string,

    C. D. A. Blair, “A worldsheet supersymmetric Newton-Cartan string,” JHEP, vol. 10, p. 266, 2019, [arXiv:1908.00074]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Remarks on the non-Riemannian sector in Double Field Theory

    K. Cho, J-H Park, “ Remarks on the non-Riemannian sector in Double Field Theory”, Eur.Phys.J.C80(2020) 2, 101, [arXiv:1909.10711]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    String Theory and non-Riemannian Geometry

    J.-H. Park, S. Sugimoto, “String Theory and non-Riemannian Geometry”, Phys.Rev.Lett.125(2020) 21, 211601, [arXiv:2008.03084]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Non-Riemannian gravity actions from double field theory

    A.D. Gallegos, U. G¨ ursoy, S. Verma, N. Zinnato, “Non-Riemannian gravity actions from double field theory”, JHEP06(2021) 173, [arXiv:2012.07765]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Non-Riemannian isometries from double field theory

    C. D. A. Blair, G. Oling, and J.-H. Park, “Non-Riemannian isometries from double field theory”, JHEP04(2021) 072, [arXiv:2012.07766]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    N=1 supersymmetry and Non-Riemannian Double Field Theory

    E. Lescano, “N=1 supersymmetry and Non-Riemannian Double Field Theory”, [arXiv:2212.13853]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Identifying Riemannian Singularities with Regular Non-Riemannian Geometry,

    K. Morand, J. H. Park and M. Park, “Identifying Riemannian Singularities with Regular Non-Riemannian Geometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.4, 041602 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.041602 [arXiv:2106.01758 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fractons, non-Riemannian geome- try, and double field theory,

    S. Angus, M. Kim and J. H. Park, “Fractons, non-Riemannian geome- try, and double field theory,” Phys. Rev. Res. 4, no.3, 033186 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033186 [arXiv:2111.07947 [hep-th]]. 33

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    E. A. Bergshoeff, J. Lahnsteiner, L. Romano, J. Rosseel, and C. Simsek, A non- relativistic limit of NS-NS gravity, JHEP06(2021) 021, [arXiv:2102.06974]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Green-Schwarz mechanism andα ′-deformed Courant brackets,

    O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Green-Schwarz mechanism andα ′-deformed Courant brackets,” JHEP1501(2015) 012 [arXiv:1407.0708 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Non-relativistic heterotic string theory

    E. A. Bergshoeff and L. Romano, “Non-relativistic heterotic string theory”, JHEP 01 (2024) 146, arXiv:hep-th/2310.19716

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,

    T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equations,” Phys. Lett. B 194, 59-62 (1987) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90769-6 T. H. Buscher, “Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in Nonlinear Sigma Models,” Phys. Lett. B 201, 466-472 (1988) doi:10.1016/0370-269...

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    A Non-Relativistic Limit for Heterotic Supergravity and its Gauge Lagrangian

    E. Lescano,, “A Non-Relativistic Limit for Heterotic Supergravity and its Gauge Lagrangian”, e-Print: 2502.08711 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Duality invariant cosmology to all orders in α′,

    O. Hohm and B. Zwiebach, “Duality invariant cosmology to all orders in α′,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.12, 126011 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.126011 [arXiv:1905.06963 [hep-th]]. T. Codina, O. Hohm and D. Marques, “General string cosmologies at order α′3,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.10...

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Einstein Double Field Equations

    S. Angus, K. Cho and J. H. Park, “Einstein Double Field Equations”, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 500, arXiv:1804.00964[hep-th]. S. Angus, K. Cho, G. Franzmann, S. Mukohyama and J.-H. Park, “O(D, D) completion of the Friedmann equations”, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 830, arXiv:1905.0362...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.